Helena Chew and Martin Weinbaum, eds. The London Eyre
of 1244, London Record Society, vol.6 (1970), 5-9.

Original language:

Latin

Location:

London

Date:

1244

TRANSLATION

First, the judges asked the mayor, chamberlain, sheriffs and other of
the more important men of the town how they ought to begin their pleas.
They say [in reply] that first
the articles to which they must respond, regarding pleas of the crown,
should be handed over. They were then asked to whom the articles
ought to be handed over, and whether or not those to whom they should
be delivered ought to take an oath to tell the truth about the articles.
They say [in reply] that
the articles should be delivered to the mayor, without him having
to take any oath in that regard, and that he, in counsel with the
senior law-abiding, prudent men of the city, will respond to
the articles that are pertinent to the city. Similarly, the sheriffs
[will respond] to the articles
related to their terms of office. They will tell the truth about
the articles and anything else required of them, because of the loyalty
they owe the king and the [oath of]
fealty they have made to him. So that of course if the mayor,
who answers for the city, answers well, all members of the community
are quit as regards those matters. But if he should answer badly and
be convicted or fail in any matter concerning the city community,
the whole community for which he answers shall fail. The mayor and
all the men of the city say that this was the custom before
the war, as well as in the time of
King John, King Richard, and King Henry their father. And so
the articles were delivered to the mayor in the following form:

Concerning ancient pleas of the crown
which were before the king's justices at other times, but were not
concluded.

Concerning debts owed to King John, father of the king, during and
before the war: what the debts are and who owes them, whether the debtors
have died, and who are their heirs or the holders of their goods.

Concerning those who have maliciously destroyed or burned down houses
within the liberty of the city,
in breach of the [king's] peace, etc.:
who they are, whose houses those were, and whether they
[i.e. aggressors and victims] have
made peace without the king's licence.

Concerning young men and girls who are or ought to be in
the king's wardship: whether they are married
[already], or are
[still] marriageable; and, if they
are married, to whom and by whose agency, and how much their lands
are worth.

Concerning the king's sergeanties:
what they are, who holds them and through whom, and what kind of
sergeanties they are and how much they are worth.

Concerning churches that are or ought to be in
the king's gift: which churches they are, who holds them, and
through whom.

Concerning the king's escheats, both of
tenements of Jews and of Christians: who holds them, through whom, why
what service, and how much they are worth.

Concerning purprestures made upon
the king within the liberty or elsewhere, wherever they are, on land or
on water.

Concerning the measures that have been
fixed by regulation and sworn to throughout the kingdom: whether they
are upheld according to the provisions, and whether during peacetime
the keepers of the measures took payments
from anyone so that he might buy or sell with them. This is to be
understood to apply to all measures, both of length and of weight. And
whether the assize of the width
of cloths has been kept according to the provisions for it.

Concerning Christian usurers who have died, who they were and what
moveables they had.

Concerning the moveables seized from merchants under the dominion of
the king of France, who has them.

Concerning the moveables of Jews who have been killed, and who has
their pledges, charters and [recognizances
of] debts.

Concerning counterfeitors and clippers of coins.

Concerning the king's mint and exchange; that is, who may have made
coins or exchanges without [licence
from] the king or his bailiffs.

Concerning wrongdoers and burglars and those who have harboured them
in peacetime.

Concerning fugitives  whether any returned from flight without
[the king's] warrant  and
outlaws and who has their moveables.

Concerning bribes taken for letting pass grain and other goods, to avoid
them being commandeered by bailiffs for provisioning castles, at
a lower price than they are worth; the same regarding
prises.

Concerning new customs levied in the city, whether on
[merchandize coming by] land or
water: who levied them and where.

Concerning defaults; that is, those who have been summoned to be before
the king's justices and fail to come.

Concerning the delivery of gaols in
peacetime without warrant from the king or the justices.

Concerning those imprisoned arbitrarily by bailiffs without reasonable
cause, or those set free without warrant.

Concerning thieves who escape [from
prison].

Concerning Christian usurers who are living, who they are, what moveables
they have, and how much they are worth.

Concerning damages and prises taken from outsiders: by whom this was
done, when, where, in whose jurisdiction, and what things.

DISCUSSION

The king's travelling justices came to any given locality infrequently.
In the case of London, there had not been an eyre held there since 1226,
and before that in 1221. The next session after that of 1244 (which
lasted about two months, although some business was deferred until
the beginning of 1246) was not until 1251, and there was another
large gap until the next one, in 1276. These gaps meant that
there was likely to be a large backlog of cases to hear, and litigants,
witnesses, guarantors, or city officers had often died in the interim,
or accused persons had found opportunity to escape without trace.

London was exempt from the general eyres, which dealt with both crown
and civil pleas; only the former were entertained by the sessions
held in the Tower, since the city claimed jurisdiction over most
civil pleas for its own courts. The mayor and leading citizens 
probably largely the aldermen  acted as the presenting jury.
Note the principle of representation expressed in the preamble to
the articles: the presenters, particularly the mayor, acted on behalf
of the community; if crimes came to light that had not been presented,
the community itself was accountable.

When an eyre was convened the delivery of the list of articles to
the mayor was necessarily a first step (after the reading out of
the writ authorizing the justices to hold the eyre), since it guided
the presenting jury. Criminal proceedings of homicide, assault and
felony received attention first, and formed the bulk of the cases
(for some examples from this eyre, see "Cases
perceived as precedents or illustrating points of law").
Death by misadventure was a common presentment, while there are several
instances of abjurations of the realm by murderers or thieves. There
were a number of escheats to deal with, while the list of those who
had contravened the assizes of wine or cloth were so numerous as
not to be recorded individually (they would have been identified on
the list of estreats  i.e. fines to be levied); in the case of
the vintners it was simply stated that all were guilty. A number of
purprestures were addressed, including erection of buildings on
London Bridge and the extension of wharves into the Thames. But
the justices were not satisfied and conducted a perambulation
necessitating a second session in January 1246 just to deal with
well over a hundred infringements that had come to light.

The scope of the list of articles enquired into by the justices in eyre
grew over time, as the king defined more and more offences as within
the jurisdiction of his courts. The list of 1244 was customized to
the particular circumstances of London, omitting some of the articles
applied during the shire circuits, and adding some articles believed
particularly pertinent to the period since the last eyre: the malicious
destruction of houses (reflecting disturbances in the city), and Christian
usurers. Overall, however, the list of articles used in this eyre is very
similar to, although less extensive than, that presented in
Bracton's
compilation of about the same period; Bracton himself notes that
the articles could vary from eyre to eyre.

Despite the possibility that the list was tailored to London, the mayor
nonetheless indicated "nothing to report" with regard to a number of
the articles:

those awaiting amercement (the mayor declared that he needed to see
the records of the last eyre before he could say, but the justices were
refusing access to that court roll)

destruction of houses

king's wards (the justices, however, knowing of a case, condemned
the mayor and citizens to judgement)

treasure trove

sheriffs and bailiffs holding pleas (the justices, however,
considered that the assize of weights and measures was a case in hand,
and condemned the mayor and citizens etc.)

moveables of dead Jews

harbourers of wrongdoers

counterfeiters and clippers

mints and exchanges

bribes related to the administration of weights and measures

bribes for protecting goods from requisitioning

new customs

imprisonments without cause (the initial answer subsequently being
amended to admit the case of one sheriff which came to light during
the eyre)

escaped thieves

Christian usurers, living or dead (although it was intimated that
Italians merchants in the city might be practitioners)

damages and prises taken from outsiders

After working through most of the list, the city authorities then
presented a number of new city ordinances  possibly those
necessitated by judicial decisions from the previous eyre 
for the justices' review, along with changes or elaborations related
to tolls collected or the application of standard measures.

There was a single case of a fugitive having returned to the city,
but a most damaging one. He had obtained a licence for returning, but
the justices ruled that this had been obtained during Henry III's
minority, and should have been renewed after the king had come of age.
As this had not been done, the city was judged guilty of harbouring
a criminal, and had to throw itself on the king's mercy and surrender
its liberties, returned when the city agreed to pay the king £1,000.
This kind of thing, together with fines laid on numerous city officials,
past and present, for various failures in their duty (despite a wall
of silence on articles related to abuses of office), must have made
the proclamation of an eyre a matter for dread.

NOTES

"the war"
The struggle between John and his barons. The effects of this on
administration of law and order are suggested at several points in
the document.

"ancient pleas"
These were the types of criminal cases over which the king claimed
jurisdiction and which had been brought before the previous eyre but
not brought to the point of a judgement, or perhaps had been dealt with
by justices of gaol delivery in the interim. Crimes occurring earlier
than the previous eyre would not be entertained  perpetrators
would not be tried, but that eyre's presenting jury could be fined for
failing to present the crimes.

"king's mercy"
Being in the "king's mercy" meant that one had been convicted of
a crime and was liable to be amerced. Determining the appropriate
amercement was a matter for local men appointed as assessors for
the eyre.

"sergeanties"
Grants of land in return for some kind of duty or service (or its
financial equivalent), other than that related to military tenure.

"in the king's gift"
A church within the king's gift was one to which the king had
the advowson,
i.e. the right to appoint or remove the officiating priest (or assign
that right to another); this patronage might be a source of revenue
for the king, or a way of rewarding supporters.

"escheats"
An escheat was the right of a landlord to take back directly into
his own hands property of tenants who had died without heirs or had
been convicted of a capital crime, notwithstanding the possible
existence of some intermediary landlord. This right was a large part
of the reasoning behind the king insisting on licences for grants of
property to the Church, since such grants would prevent any future
possibility of an escheat. The king was considered the lord of all
Jews and their property.

"purprestures"
Encroachments (a form of trespass): typically, the extension of one's
own property onto property owned by the king, e.g. building onto
one's house a front porch, which trespasses onto the king's highway.
Those guilty were either fined or required to remove the encroachment 
usually both.

"measures"
A town's executive officers were usually responsible for keeping
the standard public measures and, sometimes through subordinates,
applying them to check the accuracy of private measures used by
tradespeople.

"payments"
It is not absolutely clear what is referred to by the "payments".
The Latin (mercedem) means a small reward. In this context it
probably means a bribe to ignore the use of inaccurate measures, and
is used later in the document in the sense of bribe. But it is possible
that the term may also incorporate fees (possibly extortionate) paid
for the information needed for accurate private measures to be obtained.

"prises"
Goods taken by the king as a form of customs.

"delivery of gaols"
Gaol deliveries were sessions by king's justices intended to handle
backlogs of cases involving prisoners, during the gaps between the eyres.